Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheOhioState

The Stieber Ramos controversy explanation

Recommended Posts

I'm not a forensic guy, or a detective.... but your photo above still shows the camera in view. Vaks photo shows the camera directly above the cord and cup... the cord and the cup are at least in that photo still in view. If you draw a straight line from the hips of the ref to the cup, then they seem to still be in view.

 

Maybe later he goes further?

If you watch the video you can see the camera guy shooing Brands away about a second later. He only needed to obstruct the view for a split second to nullify the review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it odd that the camera is set at mat level view when at all other matches, the camera is set at desk view level?

 

Isn't the camera supposed to be set to the level where desk on floor would have been at other matches?

 

I gotta get home to see that video tonight.

 

Edit: Never mind. That "camera" turned out to be a cup. I didn't realize that circle was for camera stand not that vague blot which was a cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a forensic guy, or a detective.... but your photo above still shows the camera in view. Vaks photo shows the camera directly above the cord and cup... the cord and the cup are at least in that photo still in view. If you draw a straight line from the hips of the ref to the cup, then they seem to still be in view.

 

Maybe later he goes further?

If you watch the video you can see the camera guy shooing Brands away about a second later. He only needed to obstruct the view for a split second to nullify the review.

 

I did watch it. I'm clearly a Penn State fan and trying to be as unbiased as possible. Terry shouldn't have been there plain and simple, and since he is closer to the camera I could see how even an outstretched arm could block a significant portion of the video.

I'm also saying that your above picture still shows the camera has at least some view of the action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a forensic guy, or a detective.... but your photo above still shows the camera in view. Vaks photo shows the camera directly above the cord and cup... the cord and the cup are at least in that photo still in view. If you draw a straight line from the hips of the ref to the cup, then they seem to still be in view.

 

Maybe later he goes further?

 

Here is another picture detective. Note that the time is exactly the same as my first picture. Those Brands boys are QUICK!

 

width=650http://i47.tinypic.com/15s1vl5.jpg[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a forensic guy, or a detective.... but your photo above still shows the camera in view. Vaks photo shows the camera directly above the cord and cup... the cord and the cup are at least in that photo still in view. If you draw a straight line from the hips of the ref to the cup, then they seem to still be in view.

 

Maybe later he goes further?

If you watch the video you can see the camera guy shooing Brands away about a second later. He only needed to obstruct the view for a split second to nullify the review.

I remembered in other sports that any obstruction to video even for split-second would nullify the review no matter what. I wonder if it is the case in video review rule at NCAA wrestling book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remembered in other sports that any obstruction to video even for split-second would nullify the review no matter what. I wonder if it is the case in video review rule at NCAA wrestling book?

If this is true, then there is clearly some obstruction.

 

Mr Dole, not sure if you are being sarcastic or not but I am no detective. If I were, your actions today would make you a suspect. Yes, that is sarcasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't see any reason to think that if Ramos was awarded the 2 NF that the outcome of the match is any different.

 

Like someone said...he had over 3 mins to work after this no call...and he didn't do anything. Add that to the fact that the match was all Stieber up to that sequence - and it was a mistake on his part that caused it.

 

Even with the 2 - Stieber still wins.

 

Also - I stated going into it that Ramos needed a mistake from Logan to win - boy did that opportunity come!!! Strange - Logan is never out of position like that :shock: Easilly one of the most exciting moments of the tournament!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The end of match sequence changes if the two NF are awarded. Instead of Ramos either needing a takedown with greater than :08 or :10 left in the match to tie, or a takedown with near falls to win, he would have been able to win the match with just a takedown.

 

Given that Ramos was in a finishable position with :20 to :25 left in the match, and you can see him "press" to a finish earlier than he needed to, I have to say that the difference in score changed the end of match sequence. To say otherwise is foolish.

 

Does he win if there are 2 NF's awarded? I don't know. Is the match different? Unequivocally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with the 2 - Stieber still wins.

That's dumb. Ramos' can choose neutral, instead of down nullifying riding time. And he's the last one to get a TD from the neutral position.

 

Maybe you should quote the rest of my post where I explained why I think that before calling it dumb.

 

Also, it's good to know that the last TD recorded wipes away the 2 that Logan had and the fact that he totally dominated the match until the one Ramos got.

 

Edit* Ramos has 1 TD in all 5 of their meetings - but since it came last you just know he is obviously getting the next one if he needs it to win! (Oh wait...he did need a td to win - and didnt get it...weird) :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what the point of video review is if they can't even get good camera angles to review it. In the NFL, the officials have multiple camera angles, and it's pretty rare that one of them doesn't yield a pretty good view of the action. A lot of these calls in wrestling are judgement calls......was it two seconds or 1.5, was his back at 44 degrees or 50 degrees, etc? And it's hard to review judgement calls, so in all cases that I saw the refs just went with the initial call. Which basically means that the initial calls are either correct 100 percent of the time (hardly), OR the video review is a complete waste of time because they don't even have the proper system with which to make it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The end of match sequence changes if the two NF are awarded. Instead of Ramos either needing a takedown with greater than :08 or :10 left in the match to tie, or a takedown with near falls to win, he would have been able to win the match with just a takedown.

 

Given that Ramos was in a finishable position with :20 to :25 left in the match, and you can see him "press" to a finish earlier than he needed to, I have to say that the difference in score changed the end of match sequence. To say otherwise is foolish.

 

Does he win if there are 2 NF's awarded? I don't know. Is the match different? Unequivocally.

 

Yes, the match is different. If the score is tied going into the third, Logan doesn't wrestle defensively and takes down Ramos either in regulation or in overtime, just like he has every other time. I believe this was the first time that Tony Ramos has ever taken Logan Stieber down whereas Logan has probably ten takedowns on Ramos. So you tell me who gets the takedown in the third period, or in overtime? Bearing in mind that Stieber has yielded exactly one takedown all season. Talk about "much ado about nothing".

 

For those who are questioning the 1 1/2 count....really? You never saw a ref start to make the hand swiping motion and a guy get off his back while the ref was mid-swipe, andd the points not be allowed? I feel like I've seen this happen a thousand times.

 

Many of you who are so convinced that it was either backs or even a fall are so convinced because you watched it in extreme slow-motion replay a half dozen times on ESPN, which makes both sequences seem much longer than they actually were. The NCAA Official was in position to make the call in real time, and he says no points. If he'd awarded points, the overwhelming weights of past history suggests that Logan gets the takedown in the third and wins a 9-6 victory. It's not like Ramos didn't have an entire third period to get something going. He failed to do so.

 

I think those trying to re-wrestle this match via internet message board ought to be focused on the really controversial match at 133 this weekend- Ramos' win over Graff. In that match, Graff scored a takedown and a reversal, whereas Ramos scored three escapes and benefitted from a stall point that sent the bout to overtime. Not exactly a Gable-esque victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of you who are so convinced that it was either backs or even a fall are so convinced because you watched it in extreme slow-motion replay a half dozen times on ESPN, which makes both sequences seem much longer than they actually were. The NCAA Official was in position to make the call in real time, and he says no points. If he'd awarded points, the overwhelming weights of past history suggests that Logan gets the takedown in the third and wins a 9-6 victory. It's not like Ramos didn't have an entire third period to get something going. He failed to do so.

 

I think those trying to re-wrestle this match via internet message board ought to be focused on the really controversial match at 133 this weekend- Ramos' win over Graff. In that match, Graff scored a takedown and a reversal, whereas Ramos scored three escapes and benefitted from a stall point that sent the bout to overtime. Not exactly a Gable-esque victory.

 

Part one I agree with...but the last part - come on. You can't call that win "controversial". There was no controversy - Graff was finished and stalled as much as he could - Ramos deserved that win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not once during the coverage did the review show a replay in normal speed. Showing it in slowmotion does nothing when you are trying to judge if back points should be awarded. And slowmotion replays never indicate at what rate the action is slowed too. I would guess every machine would have a different rate...thereby distorting our view. Furthermore, slow motion is in fact a distortion of real-time events. Just like a record can be played back at different speeds, so too can action. And back points CAN NOT be started until control is given . Ramos' fans are awarding control before it could be reasonably given, because of bias....just as the Steiber fans are bias the other way. However, based on five times of wrestling prior, I predict Logan finds a way no matter what occurred during that flury, save for a fall.

 

In this circumstance, though, Logan forced a scramble, rather than give up a takedown ( I believe Logan can learn from that BIG-TIME)...he gambled and Ramos very nearly seized the opportunity, but Logan did in fact beat the back points, mostly because of the time lapse between a takedown and nearfall. Either way it wasn't remotely close to a fall,as Ramos couldn't hold it all, and it was far from 3 nearfall as others have suggested.

 

 

Either way, had 2 been awarded, I see Logan getting another takedown if he needed it. Ramos also had Logan in some very dangerous ties that Logan proved he could defend. He is just better. But I give tons of credit to Ramos for sure. I see Logan focused on getting better in order to win a world championship. I see Ramos only focusing on Steiber. This may help or hurt Ramos, but I admire his fight for sure.

 

I do not think that 2 should have been awarded, and even had they been, I'm quite confidant Logan would have won and collected another takedown. In fact Logans ability to avoid both the fall, and Nearfall, as well as his ability to avoid getting manned over earlier, speaks to an ability that should be given FAR more credit.

 

As far as the Oliver match...while that last disputed takedown is always mentioned....no one ever bring up the fact that Logan took Jordan down on a go behind where Oliver's hands did indeed briefly hit the mat, but 2 was not awarded....kinda sucks people only choose to see when Logan gets the lucky calls, but he gets some calls missed too.

 

As much as Iowa fans are complaining, and I understand; the refs did as good a job officiating as Tony or Logan did wrestling: they weren't perfect but the best we have around.

 

I predict that Logan will be better next year than this year as well; my reasoning is that the injury did effect Logans timing and technique on his feet. It did nothing to hurt his strength obviously. Anyway I believe that the better wrestler won and, really there is not much else to say.

 

One swipe with his right arm, then one swipe with his left arm....that equals two swipes, even from a horrible ref.

 

I don't think anyone in the arena could tell what happened, but as soon as I got home and viewed the DVR, I couldn't believe what I saw, that was a hose-job pure and simple.

 

I just don't understand how some fans can be so blinded when their team wrestles. I guess there are wrestling fans and then there are (Hawk,Poke,Goph,Buckeye) Fans....but give me a break people, that was a two count wherever you might live.

 

The ref got nervous he might look bad to all his buddies sitting over there in their ridiculous seating arrangement, so he didn't want to switch his call. Getting 2 different refs to watch the screen and make the challenge call sounds good, but it's still a situation of a good ol' boy system where they will be apprehensive to show up one of their buddies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted above, why in the world don't they also use the network angles in their review? ESPN had 5 different angles of the action. Not all of them could be blocked. In football and basketball, the refs look at all available views of the play before making a decision.

 

Wasn't there a similar dispute during the first McDonough match when the coaches were disputing the locked hands call, but it wasn't seen on the video review because of the positioning of the wrestlers? Yet it was obvious on the ESPN angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The end of match sequence changes if the two NF are awarded. Instead of Ramos either needing a takedown with greater than :08 or :10 left in the match to tie, or a takedown with near falls to win, he would have been able to win the match with just a takedown.

 

Given that Ramos was in a finishable position with :20 to :25 left in the match, and you can see him "press" to a finish earlier than he needed to, I have to say that the difference in score changed the end of match sequence. To say otherwise is foolish.

 

Does he win if there are 2 NF's awarded? I don't know. Is the match different? Unequivocally.

 

Yes, the match is different. If the score is tied going into the third, Logan doesn't wrestle defensively and takes down Ramos either in regulation or in overtime, just like he has every other time. I believe this was the first time that Tony Ramos has ever taken Logan Stieber down whereas Logan has probably ten takedowns on Ramos. So you tell me who gets the takedown in the third period, or in overtime? Bearing in mind that Stieber has yielded exactly one takedown all season. Talk about "much ado about nothing".

 

For those who are questioning the 1 1/2 count....really? You never saw a ref start to make the hand swiping motion and a guy get off his back while the ref was mid-swipe, andd the points not be allowed? I feel like I've seen this happen a thousand times.

 

Many of you who are so convinced that it was either backs or even a fall are so convinced because you watched it in extreme slow-motion replay a half dozen times on ESPN, which makes both sequences seem much longer than they actually were. The NCAA Official was in position to make the call in real time, and he says no points. If he'd awarded points, the overwhelming weights of past history suggests that Logan gets the takedown in the third and wins a 9-6 victory. It's not like Ramos didn't have an entire third period to get something going. He failed to do so.

 

I think those trying to re-wrestle this match via internet message board ought to be focused on the really controversial match at 133 this weekend- Ramos' win over Graff. In that match, Graff scored a takedown and a reversal, whereas Ramos scored three escapes and benefitted from a stall point that sent the bout to overtime. Not exactly a Gable-esque victory.

 

 

I'm not fooled by slow-motion and what might have been, I watched the ref take two swipes with his arm(s).

 

I like what you tried to do there too, bringing up the Ramos-Graff match like it has ANYTHING to do with the FINALS backpoint situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Given that Ramos was in a finishable position with :20 to :25 left in the match, and you can see him "press" to a finish earlier than he needed to, I have to say that the difference in score changed the end of match sequence. To say otherwise is foolish."

 

Moot point, Bucksman.

 

You're assuming the difference in score would have changed how Ramos would have handled the "finishable position", without also conceding that the difference in score could have changed how Stieber would have wrestled before the "finishable position", you speak of, HAD EVEN BEEN REACHED. With a different score it might not have happened.

 

My position is that 2 NFs were very possible. Seemed likely it to me. I thought Brands could very well win the challenge. He didn't. If he had, I think it would be hard to say how it would have turned out.

 

I don't think Stieber fans can guarantee a susequent TD for Stieber. I also don't think Ramos fans can guarantee the "outcome would have changed" (though they certainly can call the referee a liar, if they so wish).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still think Stiebe would've won but am I the only one who saw the official swipe with one hand, instantly shift to the same hand and then swiped with the other hand and put two fingers to the mat?

I saw this same thing you describe. It looked like he was indicating that he was holding 2NF, which seemed odd, given the flurry of action. I will have to check the DVR to see if my memory is playing tricks on me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The official swipes once with each hand, that's two counts to me! Watch the video, I watched it several times to make certain there were 2 swipes.

 

You cannot say they match would have certainly ended 7-6 even with the nearfall.....the match may have been wrestled differently from the time of the N2 forward.

I watched it several times in slow motion and only saw one swipe. First, the ref throws up 2 points for the TD with his right hand. (That looks like a swipe, as he's already going to the mat to check for back points.) He slides to his left, makes a swipe for a one-count with his left arm, and then throws himself back to his right to continue checking for back points. In doing so, he extends his left forearm to stop his momentum (which also resembles a swipe somewhat). Then he makes the "over and back" sign to indicate that near-fall criteria wasn't met.

 

Haggerty's taking a lot of flake for that call, but he was on top of the action and reacted and readjusted very quickly. All of the signals he gave were actually consistent with each other and with how he scored that sequence (a TD, followed by a no-call for a near-fall).

 

That said, I can understand how people could mistake his signalling for a TD - or extending his forearm to stop his momentum - as back point swipes. I initially saw it that way myself, particularly his initial movement of signalling for the TD while simultaneously going to the mat to check for back points. (Not trying to "argie," but I'd encourage others to take another look at that sequence.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ref would have been in the right position to begin with he would have been down in time to call the fall. This is not pro wrestling u don't need to hold them there for 2 or 3 count. Ref blew it plain and simple,.

Tell me why the ref is running around counting with green band and when he does get there on the floor he counts again with red band? Face it these guys (refs) are not doing their job right.

 

Tell me how can Perry back pedal the whole match and only get one warning for stalling ?

 

Tell me how come Taylor can get a fall in less than 2 sec when the ref is calling it from the behind view?

 

We are going to have problems in our sport until something or someone can get these refs to be consistent , ok done :evil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a PSU fan (and not particularly a fan of Ramos), I thought he had 2 back points, but in no way did I think that was a pin. I didn't go all CSI on the DVR, but it was close enough that I don't think it's anywhere near as egregious a mistake as some are implying. Either way, there was time for Ramos to win after that call, yet Steiber is the one who won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure what the point of video review is if they can't even get good camera angles to review it. In the NFL, the officials have multiple camera angles, and it's pretty rare that one of them doesn't yield a pretty good view of the action.

 

Money. Point #1 is this is an experimental/rule rule this year. I'm sure things will change if they decided to implement in the next rules edition. The NFL has dedicated camera(s)..plural for replay; college wrestling basically has a camcorder hooked up to a monitor.

 

Not all events had to use replay. Case in point was the Southern Scuffle. They decided not to use. Several host schools opted out of using it this year for duals.

 

Perhaps if the rule is adopted, more angles will be provided but in 2013, you got a camcorder positioned where it should have a view of the clock and score. If the view during replay was obstructed, you then have little indisputable video evidence to warrant over turning a call.

 

Tell me why the ref is running around counting with green band and when he does get there on the floor he counts again with red band?

 

This is often an officiating mechanic. I can pick up a count with the red arm and get one second, I can then pick up a count with the green arm and get one second. The point by switching arms is to indicate that I never got higher than one second. I had a series of 1 counts. If I have a series of one counts using the same arm, it often looks like I have at least two seconds. Plus, the official is not retired to show a visual count, it is recommended but not required.

 

I personally think 2NF was warranted but I wasn't even in the arena. I know Hags and he has a built in pendulum for a count as far as I'm concerned and it is hard to second guess a guy 4 inches from the action and I don't think his positioning was poor.

 

This video is a good example of how different angles show different things. This clip is the old Dennis/Ness NCAA final. One angle looks like a certain fall, the other angle, not so much.

 

Clip # 8 starting at 17:23.

 

http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/web_video/ ... rules.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the ref would have been in the right position to begin with he would have been down in time to call the fall.

 

Now Ramos had him pinned and the ref missed the call? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Seriously, come on. You cant be serious. Please watch that sequence at full speed - in no way was that a fall...nor should it have been called a fall - ever. The whole entire thing, from the time Ramos scored the 2 td (by locking the cradle-if he was ever even locked im not sure ) to the time Stieber rolled through to his stomach...the entire sequence was 3 seconds. That is not an expression - it actually was 3 seconds long - 1:22 - 1:19 on the clock.

 

In no way, shape, or form was that / or should it have been called a fall. Argue for 2 NF all you want - but please be rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...